I would like to devide my observations into three parts, in the first round a few short, but very important fact I'd like to share with the Honourable Tribunal. Then in connection with the testimonies of Attila Antal, primarily I'd cover the concluded contract with AAM on the 24th of January 2007, will be grouped by topic and I'd make my observations on, as those testimonies of Attila Antal were read out, which he undoubtedly withdrawn, which he just re-confirmed to the Council Chairwoman, so I am forced to reflect on these as well.

First I must tell, that I got to know that Attila Antal, who made his first investigative testimony in January 26th 2007, and who we heard at this hearing too. He who is not only an excellent transport and restructuring specialist, but ambitious, determined and ambitious person. With documents he and I also proved in part, that at BKV tangible results were achieved, both the conversion and reorganization, as well as in connection with the metro line 4 progress. With those, what Attila Antal said about the antecedents of his interrogation, the physical conditions, I can identify myself with everything. Because the immense physical and psychological vulnerability, what he talked about, I myself have experienced. I stress, in writing attached and also my orally given testimonies I maintain unchanged, and that is supported by the first testimony of Attila Antal, made in January 26th. Therefore, without getting into the details I would declare that every finding Attila Antal made in his investigative confessions which himself does not maintain, and which are contrary to those contained in my testimony, do not correspond to reality. The truth is what I said. I add the facts contained in my testimony the availability of investigative files are fully supported. Thus, if any of his statement made ​​during the investigation is contrary to my confession, are at the same time contardictory to the document.

It is also a question of fact that, although substantial discrepancies were in our testimonies, and my pleader from the very first, in 2010 May 14th interrogation requested,to confront me with all who draw the opposite, with Attila Antal this confrontation was canceled. I have to highlight in the investigative confessions of Attila Antal, such significant factual discrepancies, which reasons became obvious to me based on Attila Antal's testimony at the hearing.

First, start with the AAM Inc.. Attila Antal here in the courtroom truthfully confirmed that I have not instructed him to conclude the contract of January 24th 2007, he even said that this was impossible. Truthfully also he said that this contract was necessary and for BKV was extremely important.

Thirdly, it is mentioned that AAM was suggested to him by László Becker Metro Commissioner. Mr. Antal said, that prior to his appointment he requested two things, one to let him start a full fiscal year, this was supported by the 56 votes of the Municipal Assembly, all factions agreed with it, that the reorganization process, the conversion of the BKV commence as soon as possible. Attila Antal said, highlighted in relation to AAM, that his profession is architect, then economist, and also said, that if I remember well, that he has 15 years in leading positions or other chief executive officer positions, at public or private companies, and therefore have significant professional experience.

Therefore he shared with me his opinion, that he believes, that from a professional point of view it would not be necessary that such a large-scale project such as the metro line 4, the overall coordination of implementation, the total investment, the full implementation to belong to BKV. However I informed Attila Antal of those facts, which here he also confirmed, that already in 2004 the Capital City-Government-BKV the related contracts have been concluded. In 2005, the European Investment Bank, as well as a funding involved in this, on the other hand, the permitting process, takes a minimum of 3-4 years, 20 to 23 different authorities issued licenses.

These are all to the DBR Metro Executive Board, so to BKV were about, the 12-13 major contractor contracts more than 2/3 of it has been concluded, in fact I will go further, the merits of these contracts for construction work has started. AAM Inc. moreover, not only in relation to the General Assembly proposal but made its position on many other issues as well. In light of these factors a new control panel was created, which naturally the Capital, the departments, and the BKV Supervisory Board also discussed, it was the foundation of the project management body, a fact which was led by the current CEO of BKV. It was independent of persons, so after Mr. Antal, Zsolt Balogh, then István Kocsis.

I will quote from the investigative testimony of Attila Antal. The investigative testimony page 37.671/ A. 4th paragraph, page 37.671/B. and page 37.673/A., 37.673/B. and 37.675/A., page 37.677/B. and 37.677/A. 14th paragraph, which are affected by AAM. These are details highlighted from the 27-28th of January testimony, when Attila Antal was in Gyorskocsi Street was remanded in custody.

1. Miklós Hagyó and László Becker instructed him to enter into a contract with the AAM.

2. He certainly submits, that what AAM performed, that wasn't for BKV but to Hagyó's Cabinet.

3. The performance of AAM for BKV was completely unnecessary and superfluous.

4. Zsolt Balogh, who knew himself who must win the 2007th public procurement, because he was in direct contact both with the Hagyó Cabinet and with the representatives of AAM.

I maintain the explanations of my full written testimony, and I do not intend to repeat in its entirety. I note, however, a question of fact. Those who know the BKV SZMSZ of the DBR regulations, and the ensuing Government-Capital- BKV contracts, is well aware of the fact that who had to conclude the contract with AAM on the 24th of January 2007, and what budget to finance it. Also stated unequivocally, that I was not in the preparation of the contract, nor any of its fixation, not for its implementation were not involved in the performance monitoring, completion certificates to be issued and the payment to enable was not any of my business, and in this I did not have any role.

Attila Antal had a single statement which was concerned in the investigative testimony, that I instructed him to conclude contracts. Such a level as a specialist, who we could hear in this courtroom during his testimonies, Honourable Madam President of the Council was apparent in what level Attila Antal is prepared, he had definite aims and ideas for what he did, everything that this BKV had to become a better, more efficient company, to set a more sustainable path, this man, who I think that covering all technical and other conditions gave a detailed testimony and explained the facts, he was forced to testify during the investigation matters of fact inconsistent with the documents, which I think, that in regards such prepared professional, now we know what contributions have played in, but otherwise this is almost incomprehensible fact issues that were before last week's testimony.

For example, the the 4th paragraph of page 37.621/A.: "AAM of Metro 4 prepared the reports to Mr. Hagyó, performed for Mr. Hagyó's Cabinet, to me they didn't provide any documents or certificate, I concluded the January 24th contract of therequest of Mr. Hagyó, according to the contract AAM performed not for the BKV but for Miklós Hagyó, this performance for BKV was completely unnecessary, this service has been used by Miklós Hagyó and László Becker". Hereinafter in the 7th paragraph: "for this report BKV has no need." I'm going further, the second paragraph of page 37.675/A.: "I tell you that Mr. Balogh, Miklós Hagyó recommended as project director". Hereinafter he tells in the investigative testimony that, "the Metro 4 project was under the direct control of Mr. Hagyó". Honourable Madam Council President, allow me in this connection to attach a document to my testimony. I would like to describe the date and subject of this document, and to point out a few important details from the Municipal Assembly proposals.

The accused attorney of Miklós Hagyó I. accused, gave to the President of the Council the No. 10-428/190/07 proposal of the Urban and Asset Management Deputy Mayor, which under the No. 46/Vé/34. is attached to the Protocol by the president.

Miklós Hagyó I. accused:

The subject of this amendment is contribution to the BKV DBR Metro Project Directorate appointment of the new head. The date is June 2007, the referring was me, explicitly draw attention that the Metropolitan Chief Notary was Dr. Zsolt Tiba, also endorsed this submission. I would like to highlight the first sentence of this amendment. "In order to carry out a more effective work on the Metro line 4 construction works, the CEO of BKV DBR Metro Project Directorate has initiated the implementation of a change management personnel. According to this instead of László Gulyás, the future tasks of the project manager will be provided by Árpád Balogh". Here I would like to state as a fact that before the appointment of Mr. Balogh, with the exception the process before the appointment, I had no relation with him at all. In connection with this appointment, to which the Metropolitan Municipality had only contribution power, I met Mr. Árpád Balogh. I don't remember who introduced me to him, Mr. Olti as Deputy CEO, or Mr. Antal, or the Metro Commissioner.

The aforementioned proposal clearly shows, that under the BKV-Government-Capital contract, the state also had contribution right. Therefore, Dr. János Veres Finance Minister in his letter dated on the 22nd of May 2007 as the named acting minister in the contract has approved the appointment of Mr. Árpad Balogh. I’ll go further.

With EIB, on the 18th of July 2005 the Capital and BKV signed a loan agreement. EIB, imposed an information obligations by this contract, of the financing bank as well.

On the second page I'd like to highlight that sentence, the appointment of Mr. Árpád Balogh, has taken note of the Bank itself.

Miklós Hagyó I. accused, reads out of the Protocol annexed No. 46/Vé/34. proposal's first sentence of the last paragraph.

After reading Miklós Hagyó I. accused:

This is likely to happen in the June general meeting.

Three documents I would like to refer again. One of the BKV Organisational and Operational Rules, which undoubtedly contains the relevant legislation, the second document is the Capital-Government-BKV contract, and the third, which was accepted in the summer of 2008, is the Organisational and Operational Rules of the Project Steering Committee, where also the current CEO was who otherwise ran it, convened and formulated decisions of the Project Steering Committee meetings. So I definitely declare that to I had no direct working relation with Mr. Árpád Balogh. With him I met in relation with submissions, information, and other acting on these issues BKV and colleagues belonged to the DBR Metro Directorate we consulted in relation with submissions and information.

Considering these facts, what I've said which are factual issues, to the contract dated on the 24th of January 2007 which has added as the subject of the accusation, only one thing binds me to it. Attila Antal's only statement made ​​during the investigation. In this context, five things I would like to be formulated.

1. At none of the investigative stage of the proceedings either by the police or the investigating authority's staff were not asked that question of Attila Antal, that for the contract conclusion in January 24th 2007, where, when, how and why did I instruct him.

2. Facts in the indictment did not include the details of these issues, even though these are in my opinion considered as factual issues in the criminal proceedings. And there is no such proposal, which would be aimed at clarifying these issues.

3. My first hearing as suspect took place on the 14th of May 2010. I have already said that here my defense counsel Dr. András Kádár, initiated that anyone who is opposed to what has been said by me and puts a different view, confrontation should take place. Attila Antal's investigative confession statements completely contradict and oppose my testimony. However, during the entire period of investigation and still up to this day the confrontation did not happen.

4. The accusation's subject 2007 24th January contract the work was done as a result of the AAM report, so it is the subject of the accusation, this report is not part of the investigative dossier.

5. It was not seconded by experts who had examined the need for this study, the professional, technical level work of it.

In view of this, I think that logically, the following questions arise:

1. Why the investigating authority did not ask Attila Antal during the investigation those questions which concern that when, where, why, and under what circumstances I instructed him to conclude the contract dated on the 24th of January?

2. Despite the obvious contradiction between our investigative testimonies and despite, that my defense counsel had suggested, why was there not a confrontation during the entire period of investigation, or prior to closing?

3. The indictment seemed to be supported by the investigative testimony of Attila Antal. In contrast, despite the obvious facts of how could I be a suspect and accused of this count?

4. Why didn't the investigating authority need the summary prepared by AAM, which is itself the subject of the accusation? Why do not form part of this investigative documentary material, despite the fact that on the website of the Metropolitan Municipality the proposals to be submitted to the Municipal Assembly and its annexes, the Commissioner's report can be found?

5. Why was there not a request for an expert, who could have examined these issues needed? Who is the member of the investigating authority who has the knowledge and expertise in this matter and dare to take a position, that even the basis of the accusation contract study was not needed?

I would like to point out again after all this, that I didn't instruct Attila Antal or others, not in the end of 2006 nor in the beginning of 2007 related to any contract. I didn't formulate any request to this to anyone. With AAM before the conclusion of the contract I never had any relationship with its owners, or employees that I didn't know. With its leaders and members I have never been in a business, cousinly or amicable relation. As I recall, from the part of the business association later, after the conclusion of the contract I've got to know only Edit Horváth. Furthermore, I signed a contract with AAM on the 24th of January, suspicions concerning the indictment and the facts in are fully based on erroneous findings. It does not correspond to reality, to the Budget Committee on this subject reports should have been prepared by me. It does not correspond to the reality that I have been instructed by Attila Antal to conclude the contract. It does not correspond to the reality that the contract for the BKV was unnecessary and unjustified. It does not correspond to the reality that the material value prepared by AAM Inc. should have been paid from the budget provided to me from the Mayor's Office. Moreover, now we can say that in all cases shown to correspond to the opposite of these claims are true.

Other comments on specific topics, grouped together:

On page 37.663/B. 3rd and 9th paragraph, "Botond Aba's dismissal was an open secret." Here I refer to the fact that in the previous trial, and in my written testimony stated that Attila Antal also said the dismissal of Botond Aba expected to occur was a well known fact. This decision was brought by the Municipal Assembly. In this context, because I think it belongs here, I would like to clarify what Attila Antal said, as to whether it was October 2006 when I called him for the very first time.

This is extremely important. I don't remember the exact time of the phone call, however, I can say without a doubt, which period it was, and what was the situation when I looked for Attila Antal. After the election, which was in October 2006, the coalition negotiations have started. I've already said, that while this I met with Mr.Gábor Demszky Mayor, who pointed out the faction leadership that he considers me appropriate for the position of deputy mayor. In this context, the negotiations seemed to emerge, that which areas may be in the future, which professional supervision belongs to me. Taking into account the well known fact, the Mayor said countless times in the media, that he does not wish to continue to work together with Botond Aba, and in view of the situation, in fact, an agreement, that the participants in the coalition Cooperation Council also, so that their delegating parties agreed, that BKV needs a major restructuring, reorganization. Then the question arose, to which I believe we found the answer and the Municipal Assembly also confirmed that with 56 votes, that a technically suitable candidate is required. This was the situation, I do not know the exact date, but this process was the moment when I looked for Attila Antal. The rest we both reported in detail.

On page 37.665/A. the 8th and the 9th paragraph, page 37.665/B. from the 1st to 9th paragraph, page 37.679/A. 1st and 5th paragraph, the 1st paragraph of page 37.695/A., in connection with the decision-making mechanism of the BKV Attila Antal in his investigative testimony states the following: " On a regular basis I had to meet with Hagyó and Mesterházy, on the request of Hagyó had to meet with Hatvani-Szabó and with Dr. Iván Horváth, had to report of the situation of BKV, as well as specific requests have also been expressed, who to enter into a contract, for example, Polgári and Bebők Law Firm, HDL Law Firm, Hagyó not only on him, but on Éva Horváth, János Hatvani-Szabó, Dr. Iván Horváth, Zsolt Balogh, Miklóe Regőczi validated through his interests, at the beginning he has given specific instructions, but later he was accountable".

Mr. Antal's statements, which in his investigative testimony relate to how the decision-making mechanism of BKV was, did not correspond to reality.

Most emphatically I declare that I with Attila Antal as with the CEO of BKV only met in relation to the BKV related proposals, on which consultation meetings representatives of the professional departments, desk officers of the Cabinet, deputy and the head of the Cabinet, or if the issue was about concerning the management of BKV, then Imre Ikvai-Szabó, his Cabinet competent colleagues also attended. In addition, of the Municipality of Budapest departments, we met before the Mayor's Cabinet and Assembly meetings, for example. I never asked or instructed Attila Antal in these meeting, that with any person, company , business or law firm to enter into contracts. That Dr. Iván Horváth work for BKV, I didn't know. Because of the legal privilege I shouldn't know. It can be concluded, however, undoubtedly from the case file that BKV with Horváth Law Firm concluded a contract only at the end of 2007. Part of the investigation file the 2007-2008. diary of Mr. Horváth, where there aren't a single entry - in accordance with the facts -, that I with Attila Antal or with Iván Horváth either inside or outside of the building of the BKV ever met.

Otherwise, in a few entries, within two years, if I remember correctly 3-5 entries, when I met Mr. Iván Horváth. I must add that the investigative testimony page 37.655/A. in last paragraph, Mr. Antal himself says, that he knew these Law Firms from his previous work, and the professionalism based on this was not a question.

I do not understand why they referred to him, namely I did not understand before the last week. It does not correspond to the reality that Attila Antal should meet with me and with Ernő Mesterházy.

I hereby declare most emphatically that it does not correspond to the reality that to my request Attila Antal should have meet with János Hatvani-Szabó, with Dr. Iván Horváth, and at my request he should have informed them about the situation of the BKV. Let's stop here for a moment. Indeed, in the context I would like to confirm Mr. Antal, that we consulted with Mr. Mesterházy and with Mr. Antal together, we had meetings. The Honourable President of the Council accurately described the mayor and the prime minister's office minister's agreement, in respect of which from the Lord Mayor, and from the Capital, Mr. Mesterházy had the mandate to the interests of capital, so let's formulate, to represent towards the ministries and the government. Accordingly, a number of consultation Mr. Mesterházy attended, in consultation with the government, when the BKV major restructuring, financing, or as 4-metro-related matters were discussed. For example, Mr. Mesterházy was there when there was a meeting with the Prime Minister, so to speak, a Mayor - Prime Minister's Meeting, or when we cross-checked with Mr. Koka Minister or with minister Gordon Bajnai. This activity, however, was only able to perform if he was aware of a greater context with the aims and intentions, such as long-term financing, the funding of Metro Line 4 from EU sources, which was a very important factor, in this regard, of course, to ensure that he is able to represent the interests of capital, the necessary information must have been available to him. In this regard, I say it again, especially with the government in negotiations, there were discussions between us. I never asked Attila Antal, that outside of the chain of command provide information to anyone of the status of BKV. I form Attila Antal, prescribed legislation and internal norms and in addition to his tasks as delegated by the Mayor, never ask for accountability. These non-performance or inadequate performance tasks I formally asked him for information only for the reasons. Then, when the situation was justified by the supervisory committee I have initiated the investigation of the case. Again, I would like to draw the Honourable Madam President of the Council attention to those letters, which I wrote in 2007-2008 not only the current CEO, but also to the board of directors and the supervisory board chairmen, from which numerous letters, if not entirely but the Council President read made it into the procedure material.

President of the Council at 11:15 AM orders a break, then the trial goes on at 11:25 AM with that what is written on pages 113-114. appears.

Observation of Miklós Hagyó I. accused:

Page 37.683/B. 4th and 5th paragraph of the investigative testimony: "Hagyó ’s range of interests was not clearly separated from Mesterházy sphere of interest, in his mind was not able to separate that Hatvani-Szabó and Dr. Horváth, inquires to whom the request was made. "

I have no specific knowledge about that what took place in Attila Antal's soul, how he survived and transformed in himself those situations, when he made incriminating testimony of me, and to his other his colleagues, however, I firmly declare that I did not have any interest in range. This phrase, which according to the testimony of this courtroom of Attila Antal, the investigators were suggested to him, I cannot interpret.

So that there I have no specific knowledge, that with János Hatvani-Szabó and Dr. Iván Horváth what personal relationship he had. Question in fact, however, that I never had a common range of interest with Ernő Mesterházy, because in his confession he said the following: "We're not partners, but we were political opponents." It does not correspond to the reality that a merger of interest would have been between us, which would justify the investigative allegations of Attila Antal, that there is no objective basis.

In my attached written testimony I stated in detail about that at the time of my appointment how difficult situation BKV was, so I also said, that the nature of the BKV the emerging problems the press was constantly monitored. The owner Metropolitan Municipality, the press constantly bombarded by BKV relevant issues. Unfortunately, many times it happened that different channels and different terms of false news appeared in the media. On the question of whether the communication for BKV was very important, as Attila Antal said here, all factions of the Town Hall agreed, regardless of who was a member of which faction.

Indeed, it was clear to everyone, that the pre-existing, primarily, let's say in relation to the scandal of Combino’s negative image, negative image had to be changed. Therefore, communication was important to me, but not in the sense as contained in the indictment, but from the point of view, but as Attila Antal wrote of investigative records Volume 60. on page 38.409. is included in my letter dated on the 15th of November 2007, in which I drew attention to the fact, that it is untenable and unacceptable situation, to the public through the press leaked half information, often based on ideas already discarded, trying to get a picture of public transport, thus affecting almost every citizen of Budapest expected changes. On the other hand, I drew attention to the fact that BKV is one of the major company of the Metropolitan Municipality. When electing him he got the task, that after the screening of BKV immediately began to transform the company and to recommend the company's medium-and long-term strategy. This, that is, the general public proper, the need for accurate information was the sole reason, for what the field of communication development, development of the Municipality of Budapest, as the owner was expected of BKV. The extent that in relation how positive or negative news in the media I stood in front of the media coverage in connection the BKV concerning arising public problems, my letter undoubtedly shows written in the beginning of 2008 if I remember rightly my cabinet head has written in connection with that at the beginnig of the year 2008 very long lines formed in front of the ticket offices and were not able to buy passes. Then I asked myself in writing and verbally apologized to the Capital citizens for the long lines, despite the fact that I think that I should not have done it.

The 3., 4., and 5. paragraph of page 37.667/B.: Mr. Antal said, that "Éva Horváth carried out an excellent professional work in the field of Metro Line 4, he asked for an audience from Demszky, because he didn't want to lay off Éva Horváth", and this also confirms, what I've already said about Éva Horváth. That is, that I got to know her as a very much prepared colleague, and since she arrived to the Cabinet in connection with Metro 4 Line, most of the media request, it was a logical step to this task the departure of her predecessor I asked her, who was a specialist of this within the BKV.

However, the foregoing is confirmed, that this level of personnel decisions the exercising employer's rights belonged to the CEO, not to the Urban and Asset Management Deputy Mayor.

Again, I would like to point out that Éva Horváth, helped the Capital as well as my Cabinet work from the 1st of February 2008.

In connection with Éva Horváth, I also refer to the investigative testimony 1., 7.and 8. paragraph of page 37.669/A.: "Regőczi said to Attila Antal, that the communication companies through Éva Horváth, belongs to the interest of Miklós Hagyó, from the contract must pay to Hagyó, Miklós Hagyó directly and through Éva Horváth instructed Regőczi, which company to enter into contract, the conclusion of the contracts were forced by Hagyó and Mesterházy".

In connection with my Cabinet members I've already said, that my belief is that they are all honest people, who have never relied on me in order to obtain an undue advantage, and my opinion still to this day that this could not have happened. However about people who I do not personally know, this field I have no knowledge about. Miklós Regőczi, was among those from who I do not have specific personal knowledge. So I can not say that this has happened, or not. However, I firmly declare that this kind of request on my part, or instruction has never sounded not towards Miklós Regőczi, or anyone else.

The investigative testimony 4th paragraph on page 37.677/B., the 8-12th paragraph of page 37.703/A.: "Hagyó said, that Synergon has to win, and Hagyó said to impose such condition at the new tender process, where Synergon can apply and has a chance to win. "

In this regard my made ​​in writing and attached statement I still maintain, and on this issue I would like to also use a letter of mine located in Volume 60. on page 38.455, which I wrote to Zsolt Balogh, Honourable Deputy CEO, on the 26th of February 2008, at this time he was already the acting CEO, and Attila Antal was spending his sick leave. First of all I would like to state in no doubt that what Attila Antal talks about here is the Synergon contract, and this is not what's in II. count Mr. Balogh's false allegations affecting me. That is a completely different, a government's central procurement tenders was issued on the basis of actual delivery contract. It's a completely different, and not to in any way related to the contract. I would also like to point out here that in connection with Synergon, and its director I said, that the company, its leaders I did not know, at no time I did ever come across. I mention this letter, because its roots, as Mr. Antal said, actually had to go back to the previous year contracts with T-Systems. For years, in such detail I did not deal with this for many years, but firmly say that in that program, which Attila Antal handed to the President of the Council, which is the reorganization program of BKV, it had 50 points in it. Inter alia in respect of the cost savings a very important and key point was the screening the cost-effectiveness of BKV contracts at the time. As I recall, as this was perhaps one of the largest contracts I distinctly remember that conducted the negotiations with T-System, and in 2007 the then one-year contract price relative to the company management could achieve a favorable condition. Otherwise, the termination of this contract indeed took place at the beginnig of 2008, however related to this I didn't formulate any request or instruction, as either in connection with what tender should be written.

Here I would like to draw the President of the Council's attention, that according to my memories to this tender which was written after the departure of Attila Antal, 16 to 17 companies were interested in, and at the end of a long selection process, by the end of 2008 has been selected that company, which won the tender, that discussed by the Board of Directors, this contract has already been signed by Mr. István Kocsis, and the current state of news media, and information provided by BKV, this was a better amount than in the previous contract with this subject, and much of its content was higher. This is why I think the Board of Directors supported the conclusion of the contract, because it is bringing BKV in a better position in the long term. However, the preparation of this contract tendering can be defined in relation to anyone or any request or instruction. Otherwise, this is the letter I quoted from page 38.445. of Volume 60. this is in the first sentence immediately records that in February 20th, when Attila Antal was already in sick leave, Municipality of outsourced IT Committee, in a closed meeting, Committee members were informed about the IT development of BKV. Here I record, that after the meeting several requests were received in my office, in which the termination of the T-Systems Hungary Ltd. contract were discussed in detail. So I asked the CEO to kindly provide information on the reasons for the termination, its legal, technical conditions as well as the conception of the process. I asked him to describe also what further steps are planned to do, and what are the guarantees of the capital regarding the correctness of the further decisions. This letter of mine was dated on the 26th of February 2008.

Mr. Antal, in his investigative testimonies decisions related to his employment and conditions, formulates more thoughts on this matter. In this topic I want to attach a new document.

Dr. András Kádár lawyer, the defense counsel of Miklós Hagyó I. accused, handed over the letter to the President of the Council, which she attached as an annex to this Protocol under the No. 46/Vé/35.

Miklós Hagyó I. accused:

This document is dated on the 29th of January 2007. This letter is written by Zsolt Tiba chief notary of Budapest to Somlyódy Csaba, President who exercising the employer's rights to the Municipal Assembly, Economic Affairs, subject: to Attila Antal, to clarifying the issues in connection with the mandate of BKV CEO and member of the Board of Directors.

This 3-page document from point to point summarizes the circumstances of appointment of Mr. Antal, when the the Municipal Assembly decided, when the Board of Directors decided on this. Mr. Chief Notary in this letter wrote, that with what part of the decision of the Board he is unable to identify himself technically and legally.

This very well indicates, beside many others, that to the appointment of Mr. Antal, which body when and how they decided. I have repeatedly said that when the General Assembly voted Mr. Attila Antal as CEO, I was the only Deputy Mayor alone, I was the referring. But the rules of procedure in accordance with the relevant legal issues the Chief Notary correspondence with the Municipal Assembly Economic Committee, as the employer's rights to practice committee of the President, thus in considering the merits, other than that, I was the referring of this submission, accordance with the appropriate procedures, the competent persons of the capital in accordance of the organizational and operational rules, as well as the Committee Chairman dealt with it. On the 31st of March 2008 the Mayor's Cabinet discussed the Chief Executive Officer of BKV-related personnel issues. Here of the official regimen with Mr. Ikvai, we were together the referring. Here was László Sándor Kerényi, Csaba Somlyódy, who was the chairman of the competent committee, and Gábor Dancs, transport Councillor. It was decided under No. 145/2008. "...the Cabinet decides that to the subject of sort the legal relationship of Attila Antal, prepare a legal opinion that demonstrates how to be settled by the issue of the Municipality of Budapest for the most legal manner. Responsible, Dr. Zsolt Tiba."

Honourable Council President, I try to be very simple, as I mentioned that despite the fact that Attila Antal had withdrawn and not maintained that part of his investigative testimony which is contrary to what he said at the tribunal, but it has been read and thus it is part of the evidence material, I would like to go over to read his statement, and only where it is necessary to highlight factual inconsistencies.

Once again I'd like to draw attention, that the first investigative testimony of Attila Antal, which he made on the 26th January, of its expression, of its speech, almost entirely consistent with that Attila Antal, who I met and who testified in the trial. Attila Antal says at the end of his confession, what he has said here as an addition to his oral testimony, that documents were not available for him. On the 26th he says in the last sentence of his testimony, that "... I have no contracts with me, I should look after them, then I can declare the exact content ... " Taking this into account, it was based on the foregoing, and started on the 27th to testify to this.

I would also like to say, that it is correct what Attila Antal said here, that I was not calling him and I have not talked him into to being CEO. To the metro governance statements related section previously I touched upon in detail. With his status, employment law and any disputes relating now I added that letter, which was conducted by the chief notary and by the employer's rights practitioners Economic Committee Chairman. I have also responded to what Mr. Mesterházy said here in relation to Hagyó, that he had to discuss and consult all the issues with them, this does not correspond to reality. I discussed it in detail, that in what respect the topics were a few times in the discussion. In January 26th Mr. Antal had this to say, that he received the task from Mr.Demszky, that to make a reorganization plan within 100 days, and so he entrusted a Ltd., which their professional history, and based on its position at the BKV, as the company was pre-classified, found to be suitable for this. So here in accordance with the facts correctly stated what had happened, then in the testimony in January 27th Mr. Antal, formulated the opposite in relation to CEMI, that I said to screen the company.

From one day to the next there are essential contradictions between his testimonies, and I emphatically declare, that Mr. Gábor Demszky Lord Mayor requested Attila Antal, to begin screening for BKV to put down the program within 100 days.

To his allegations in connection with the law firms I have reacted already. I explicitly stated that "... Mr. Hagyó, didn't want to continuously work together with lawyers in contact with the previous management, he wanted to work with fiduciary lawyers, that through this they can check the company and me..." it does not correspond to reality. Simply in view of the lawyer secrecy this claim, stating I can not interpret. "... Mr. Hagyó said, that with these two law firms I should enter into contracts." It does not correspond to the actual situation, and in details I have explained. "... Mr. Mesterházy and Mr. Hagyó knew about all cases of BKV." It does not conform to reality. I discussed this in detail countless times, and I maintain them.

"....besides Mr. Mesterházy and Mr. Hagyó, regularly requested information from me the confidential persons of Mr. Hagyó, Dr. Horváth and Hatvani." I firmly declare that I didn't have any confidential relation other than the client-lawyer relationship with Iván Horváth. In connection with Mr. Hatvani, I still maintain my testimony in the course of the investigation, without getting into details. "With the Attorney's office of Dr. Iván Horváth, previously I entered into a contract at the request of Mr. Hagyó, so it wasn't conspicuous that we had to meet. " This is on page 37.665/B. Here again I would like to say that this anti-record findings, since the file shows, that only at the end of the year, the last months of 2007 concluded the contract. "Mr. Hagyó asked me to inform the above named two gentlemen about the affairs of BKV." I maintain what I just said, outside the normal administration process I never asked anyone to any matter in relation to BKV inform anyone and never asked anyone to act on my behalf and in my place.

The first paragraph of page 37.667/B., there is a statement in connection with Mr. Regőczi, that "I thought of Regőczi, and later they later approved my candidate. " I would like to repeat again, because of this later in connection to Mr. Regőczi, also has importance, that I maintain what I said in my investigative testimony, that prior to his appointment, neither amicable, nor business therefore I had no relations with him. He was introduced to my by Attila Antal, as shown in the investigative hearing, contrary to his testimony. Otherwise, in the third paragraph that Mr. Regőczi developed the appropriate connection in the metropolitan municipality with Dóra Czuk, responsible for communication, with Krisztián Nyáry and with Ottó Lelovics, it is entirely correct, I told this in my testimony. It was not about that one of the Deputy Mayor communication staff should be informed only, but Dóra Czuk and Krisztián Nyáry, the press staff of the Mayor's Office in all related professional issues, already in the context, that when what kind of statement appears, they were informed. To his testimony in the context of Éva Horváth, I have already reacted.

In the penultimate paragraph, "... I tell that I knew that Regőczi, Éva Horváth and Mr. Hagyó has a good relationship." Definitely I would like to say that until early February of 2008 until Éva Horváth got in working relation with the metropolitan municipality and with my cabinet, I only had a professional relationship with her, which were covered in the first place in relation to the Metro 4 press conferences and events of reconciliation was between the BKV and my colleagues, and at these events, these press conferences I met Éva Horváth and Miklós Regőczi. Direct working relationship with them explicitly states that I had not.

On page 37.669/A. : "Mr. Mesterházy and Mr, hagyó didn't tell me, that related to communication events recommending any of the companies to Regőczi." This is true. I didn't formulate any request or instruction in connection with any communications company neither to Attila Antal, or Mr. Regőczi, nor to any employee of BKV, which it had been applied, to engage any contract or any legal rights with any company. On the same page: "Mr. Regőczi told me, that the contracts with these companies is to be concluded, because these companies through Éva Horváth belongs to the interest circle of Miklós Hagyó. From the amount of the contract must pay to Mr.Hagyó." It explicitly states that it is in every respect the opposite of the reality, I maintain all my statement about all this, which here before this tribunal in the course of the investigation I made. I strongly reject that from anyone, in any way I have benefited from any contract entered into in relation to BKV.

I also said, that directly I didn't know Mr. Regőczi, I had no working relation with him, therefore, his statements otherwise are very difficult to know, according to which took place between Mr. Antal and Mr. Regőczi, it's really hard for me to comment on these at all. The role of Éva Horváth, last paragraph. "Beside DBR communication acted as liaison between Regőczi and Hagyó." Now let me supplement with only one thing what I have said many times. Mr. Regőczi employed Éva Horváth, he was her boss, as Deputy Chief Executive Officer at BKV. I've already said, that I met Éva Horváth there, I've said its circumstances, that since when in 2008 she started to work in the capital. Well more absurd than this, that I instruct the CEO through me a so-called unknown employee? Due to the progress of time related claims to AAM, which has been truthfully said by Attila Antal in his testimony before the Honourable Council, and I have also dealt with them, therefore now I do not discuss the details again. In connection with the Metro 4 I've told the facts, which leave no doubt these allegations of investigation made ​​an anti document.

In the testimony in January 28th again hears a sentence, which is simply against the document. Once again I say, the preparedness of Attila Antal, his professional history, considering his work carried out in BKV, such statements document which clearly is against, only a person in an emergency situation could occur, for example to say, that the DBR Metro operating costs has never been sufficient, therefore had to use the resources of BKV. "I can tell, that the capital concluded a separate contract with the BKV of the cover costs of DBR, in this took control of the operating expenses of the DBR. Of course, this was never enough, so the sources of BKV used by the DBR and the capital. This looked like, that Mr. Hagyó instructed me or Árpád Balogh, to enter into a contract on behalf of the BKV to cover the expenditure of DBR. " So please, enough or not enough? We attached documentary evidence, Municipal Assembly propositions attached that both in 2006 and in 2007 the Municipal Assembly adopted from DBR Board of Directors budget according to my recollections, in 2006, 92 million were not used, in 2007 44 million forint, and here I would like to draw the Council's attention, that in 2008 it was increased by 370 million, based on also attached proposals DBR Metro administrative costs. So it's not that it was not sufficient, but both 2006 and 2007 remained a significant margin above the cost of the DBR Metro Board of Directors.

In connection to "Hagyó and his circle" I already reacted and said, that I had no circle at all. The indictment of course highlights such words like this, but about that namely who he interprets this circle, does not draw any conclusion. The same.

Mr. Antal tells the circle of Mr. Hagyó, comes a break, then his defense counsel comes, and the next sentence again starts with the following: "After Regőczi cited Hagyó's circle" once again I say, that to me this statement is incomprehensible.

Page 37.677/B., in respect of T-System I already made my statement, I do not wish to explain again, but then again one very important thing I would like to draw your attention in connection with Synergon, thisis the contract cointained in II. count, which is mentioned by Mr. Antal.

In connection with F.F.V.D. Lp. I said, that neither of this company, I didn't formulate any request or instruction to anyone.

Still January 28th, Mr. Antal spent one night here until January 29th in Gyorskocsi Street, to his testimony parts regarding to our Monday morning meetings I've already reacted. That part of the testimony, that "Hagyó instructed to conclude the contracts, and that I haveto meet with Horváth on a regular basis", I also note, that the facts in the indictment of such contract did not fix my respect, was not recorded because it was not like that. Moreover, this use of the word "that looks like if I would have said," in connection with nobody I did not formulate, and did not say. I have said many times, I have never asked anyone on one hand that to act on my behalf, or the non-existent powers otherwise how would I delegate, but once again I say, never anyone, neither Mr. Hatvani, nor Mr. Horváth, nor anyone esle I never asked to act on my behalf. It does not correspond to reality, I never ever requested anyone that to whether to Iván Horváth, or to János Hatvani-Szabó, or to anybody else give information about the situation and contracts of the BKV.

Page 37.681/A., these are let's say linking phrases, I apologize, I know now, I guess, based on the foregoing, how it occurred, but in relation to GFK Hungária Ltd. included in his testimony, "I know that Regőczi brought it, so it can be linked to Mr. Hagyó".I do not wish to get into its details, of course, in no way corresponds to reality. Although in respect of GFK Hungária Ltd. I know, that this is not the subject of an accusation, but to anyone I never formulated any request nor instruction, I have no information about this contract. Moreover, I don't even know the company itself.

The 3rd paragraph of page 37.683/B.: "I had to conclude the contracts with the designated Contracting Party to the instruction of Mr. Hagyó." All I can say, that this does not correspond to reality, otherwise again another sentence, I'm sorry to say so, but has great weight, but its content does not contain any specific details. Any specific finding of fact, a common phrase.

"Prompt telling you, that the interest circle of Mr. Hagyó, to me was not completely separable from the circle of Mr. Mesterházy." In this respect I have made my statement, I maintain what I said.

The next paragraph: "I tell that I had to report about the position of the company, they have asked what we plan to do, how we're doing with the transformation." In this context, I can only repeat what I have already said above, I never asked anyone to inform anyone.

The investigative testimony on page 37.678/B., what the President of the Council has read, also associated with the creation of employment, I won't repeat it, in this connection, I would only refer to the Tiba-Solymódy letter, I had already submitted.

In context of page 37.695. 1st paragraph, what I had said previously I remain unchanged.

In connection with comments in written testimony on page 37.697/17. if I understood here's the thing that seems to be clarified, I would like to add that in relation with this I also didn't formulate any request or instruction. As I recall, it was a public procurement procedure, the Management Board if it's true, following the decision of the supervisory board selected the best offer. According to my memory, although I'm not sure about this, this is the case which went through the public procurement committee. What I said here, in the last paragraph of page 37.703/A. Mr. Antal confirms as well.

On page 37.703/A. regarding to Synergon testimony section I won't repeat what I have already said.

The Council President at 12:22 PM orders lunchtime, then the court at 13:30 PM continue the hearing with that what is written on pages 113-114. appears.

To the question of the President of the Council Attila Antal III. accused:

I do not wish to make comments on the observations of Miklós Hagyó.

Dr. Gábor Papp lawyer, the defense counsel of Ernő Mesterházy II. accused, hands over in writing to the President of the Council, his protege's observation on the testimony of Attila Antal III. accused, also asked that the Council President to describe this. The President of the Council after describes the written observation, under No. 46/Vé/36. attached as annex of the protocol.

To the question of the President of the Council Attila Antal III. accused:

I do not wish to comment on this. Had no further comments.

The President of the Council describes the following documents of the investigative documents corporate documents Annex MC Volume 34th of (AAM Inc.): AAM Inc. offer made on the 12th of January 2007 (pages 793-807.), the contract dated on the 24th of January 2007 (pages 769- 791.), invoices and performance protocols related to this contract (pages 809-831.), contracts dated on the 12th of July 2007, on the 1st of August 2007, and on the 20th of November 2007 (pages 833-937.).

Observation of defense counsel of Miklós Hagyó I. accuse:

Honourable Tribunal, on the contract dated on the 24th of January 2007, besides the signature of Attila Antal, there are two more signatures on it and to compare the names on the certificate of completion with a layman's eye can be seen, that they are from Dr. László Becker and from Zoltán Donáth.

Other comments were not disclosed.

The President of the Council describes the following documents, the investigative documents corporate MC 1st Volume (ACCORD GROUP Ltd.) : company data (page 1-17.), decision of ordering house search, protocols of house search and seizure, printed electronic documents, agency contract project documentation, (pages 57-257), denunciation, report of No. 64. inquiries and its annexes, letter of intent dated on the 22nd of December 2007, unsigned employment contract, unilateral letter of intent (pages 261-379.), documents seized in a separate envelope (page 391.).

Observation of Attila Antal III. accused:

In my testimony, which I made before the court, I have reported in detail of this contract, the circumstances of the conclusion of contract, history, follow-up explained in detail, in addition, I attached the expert opinion of Mr. György Derzsi and Mr. Gyula Bakacsi, on one hand, the rules concerning the signing procedures, regarding compliance with order, which referred to the investigation made for the Supervisory Board, I add incorrectly, on the other hand the necessity and the proportionality value. As I said, this is a confidential contract, I specially treated, to prevent the unauthorized hands, this applies also to the little slip of paper that you quoted, that only the invoice should go further, details are still not. I think that as a CEO, to this has had the opportunity, I tried to be circumspect, in the case of an HR manager ​​regarding any action is quite sensitive and confidential. About the material made for the Supervisory Board I was not asked, in this connection, I could have informed them exactly, it wasn't the goal to obtain this information. There are also CVs of the interviewed candidates, I refer to this because the internal audit says, that there aren't, but there are, they didn't find them, and then they attached to the investigative file. To search for from an HR what else would it be than resumes, and selections, so I say it again there are those CVs, obviously a person who does not know and has no information about the details of these, has no idea what it is about, this may have been covered in the investigation. I was talking about MC 1 Annex document on page 171.

The solution is simple in connection with that read email, which the termination of the contract, or related appropriate ownership expectations decision was made, since from this company I asked help for a very fast action, I saw that we were running out of time, but I had to give them an answer with which they were satisfied. It is sealed at the moment, we cannot deal with it, the return was quite obvious to me, so it was only for that end of the year, the date what they wanted, in order to work fast and close it, this is related to this, I saw whom they sent it to, and I knew that among them there is my man. I shouldn't have played for time, and I wanted to close this, obviously I had the opportunity for this to come back to this later.

No other comments.

Miklós Hagyó I. accused:

The date of the denunciations in relation with ACCORD Group Ltd. I could not accurately be recorded. I ask that you please repeat it.

President of the Council reiterates that the denunciations date was on the 7th of December 2009.

Observations of Miklós Hagyó I. accused:

My comments are not directly related to the contract of ACCORD. To do this directly, I do not wish to make comments in any respect, but in general I think it is very important what I wish to say. Included in the instrument that on the 16th of October 2008 the BKV supervisory board approved a report. This report according to my memory of the supervisory board chairman Gábor Székely, sent to Mr. Gábor Demszky Lord Mayor, to Dr. Zsolt Tiba chief notary and maybe to me too. I would like to draw attention to these two decision of the General Meeting Gábor Székely refers. One of them is a General Assembly Resolution relating to AAM contract, the second which I feel that that is more important at the moment are with the concluded contracts dated from the 1st January 2007 to the end of March 2008. This decision has a three piece annex, which by the Supervisory Board discussed and adopted, these three annexes are long listed the companies in connection with which in 2008 the supervisory board if I remember correctly, conducted a inspection of practicality and technical aspects. Why are these important? I would like to say as fact, that according to the BKV Organisational and Operational Regulations the work schedule of the internal audit department was determined by the current CEO and the Supervisory Committee. In October 16th of 2008 István Kocsis was the CEO, Gábor Székely the president, and as I recall, although I did not know him personally, the internal audit department had the same manager, who at the time of the denunciations, so once again on the 16th of October 2008, Chairman of the Supervisory Board, the CEO, and the head of Department of Internal Audit was the same person, such as at the time of the denunciations.

I would like to say that in this Supervisory Board proposal already in 2008 September deals with the consultancy contracts has been concluded from the 1st of January until the end of March 2008, according to my memories there they returned for further examination of the Supervisory Board of the Internal Audit Department, then in October is this ominous meeting, where they terminate this and make the decision, which I can't quote verbatim, but in substance it decides that further investigation of these contracts are not deemed necessary by the Supervisory Board. As I recall, 7 or 8 relevant contracts of the indictment are listed here, which were examined by the Supervisory Board, examined in several rounds by the internal audit department, and no action was found necessary. In light of this I wish to note, that I do not wish to draw conclusions, but in the following year, however, the same bodies, led by the same people, in respect to these contracts a denouncement has already been made, that does not have the appropriate documentation, and does not have the proper filing background for contracts.

Well if until the 16th of October 2007 they did not notice nor the Supervisory Board, neither the internal audit department, raises further issues, than a semester, a year later, why was this case changed significantly.

The President of the Council presents the investigative documents Annex to the Mayor's Office, Mayor's Office 2nd Volume, pages of DVD 91-93., Dr. Zsolt Tiba Chief Notary information, and in connection with the implementation of General Assembly resolutions 262/2008. II.28. and the 401/2008. III.27., and further information dated on the 2nd of October 2008 from the SB president to the Lord Mayor, in connection with the 262/2008. II.28. General Assembly decision.

No comments were not disclosed.

Mrs. Szalai Dr. Eleonóra Szilágyi XIV. accused's comments:

What Attila Antal said here in his testimony and what you also read out, that practically is the same with my testimony made on the 13th of July. The fact is, that the employer was looking for someone else instead of me, about this contract I didn't know, the CEO did not inaugurate me into, but he also said that he managed himself. The fact that he intended to send me away, that my dismissal notice was initiated by my employer, now it is verified from what was said, and it is also obvious that he was aware of my age, that I'm 57, was aware of the of the concept of early retirement and its practice too, and I feel that in his testimony, and what he listed clearly underline the fact that I am not guilty.

I would like to add one more thing to my testimony I made in July the 13th. In this contract which is the 1635. print, in this that sentence is clearly stated, that following the expiration of the notice if the employee is retiring entitled to benefits of the corporate pensioners. So the fact that retirement could be said and it was not a taboo subject, already not even then, and what you read out I also discovered, it appears that I'm going to retire, although about this we still did not speak with Mr. CEO.

All I would like to say, that I didn't put anyone into misapprehension, did not mystify anyone with my retirement age and the whole contract, neither Attila Antal, nor the BKV.

To the question of the President of the Council Mrs. Szalai Dr. Eleonóra Szilágyi XIV. accused:

I would not have accepted the employer's ordinary notice of termination of employment. I did not want to retire, I wanted to work until I was 62 years old.

That form number, what my protege mentioned, it does not constitute a contract of employment, but the agreement to terminate the employment relationship.

Attila Antal III. accused:

I do not wish to comment on the testimony presented by XIV. accused.

Observation of the defense counsel of Miklós Hagyó I. accused:

My client when referred to a letter sent to the mayor by Gábor Székely Chairman of the Supervisory Board, he talked about a letter dated on the 16th of October 2008, which can be read on page 38.203. in Volume 59. I asked the court to please describe this too.

President of the Council presents the Mayor's Office investigation documents Annexed documents from the 2nd Volume of the Mayor's Office from DVD pages 95-96., dated on the 16th of October 2008, the 401/2008. III.27. General Assembly Resolution information on the performance of the Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the mayor for the second and 3 Appendix exception.

Prosecutor's observations:

I observe, that the supervisory board and the mayor's office officials are not investigating authorities, and to assess the possible consequences or additional tests are needed or not needed, it is not expected to do so. The fact that at any given moment, each body what and how it is evaluated in this regard is irrelevant.